Which option is a benefit of using N-Port Virtualization?

Question

Options

• Areduces the amount of domain IDs that are used in the fabric
• Bdoes not need to create zoning
• Creduces latency when using local switching on Fibre Channel ports
• Dallows trunking to the upstream switch
• Edoes not need to configure the upstream switches

• A
  88% (37)
• B
  2% (1)
• D
  7% (3)
• E
  2% (1)

Explanation

N-Port Virtualization (NPV) mode causes a switch to behave as an end node rather than a full fabric participant, meaning it does not claim its own domain ID - it forwards host logins upstream to an NPIV-capable core switch that handles fabric services. Since Fibre Channel fabrics are limited to 239 domain IDs, NPV conserves this scarce resource by letting many edge switches share the upstream switch's domain, making A correct.

Why the distractors fail:

• B is wrong - zoning is still required and must be configured on the upstream principal switches; NPV does not bypass zoning.
• C is wrong - NPV actually eliminates local switching; all traffic must traverse the uplink to the core switch, which can increase latency compared to a standard switch.
• D is wrong - trunking is a separate, independent feature; NPV doesn't inherently enable or require it.
• E is wrong - upstream switches must be configured with NPIV enabled; otherwise the NPV switch cannot register its hosts with the fabric.

Memory tip: Think of NPV as a switch that goes "incognito" - it has No Personal (domain) ID, borrowing the upstream switch's identity instead, which is exactly why it saves domain IDs.

No community discussion yet for this question.